Set enforcement mode (shadow/advisory/enforce) for a specific rule. Requires API key (Pro+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Enforcement mode | |
| rule_id | Yes | Rule ID to configure | |
| agent_id | No | Optional: scope override to a specific agent ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement; it does not state whether the action is reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately convey the core operation and the key prerequisite. There is no unnecessary wording, and the essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple but would benefit from additional context. There is no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values or confirm the effect of the change. It also does not explain how this differs from reset_rule_mode. Overall, it is adequate but leaves important gaps for a state-changing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, including clear descriptions and an enum for mode. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as what each mode does or the purpose of agent_id, so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('enforcement mode for a specific rule'), and enumerates the allowed modes (shadow/advisory/enforce). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like reset_rule_mode, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reset_rule_mode or get_rule_modes. The only additional note is the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a use-case discriminator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., CRUD for custom rules, mode management, presets, validation). However, get_rules, list_custom_rules, and get_rule_modes could be confused since all return rule-related info, though descriptions differentiate their focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_custom_rule, get_audit_log, delete_custom_rule). Even multi-word names like ship_confidence_check maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but appropriate for the rule enforcement domain, covering custom rules, presets, modes, audit, and validation. However, three planned-but-unimplemented tools add clutter and could be confusing.
Core operations are present: full CRUD for custom rules, preset application, mode overrides, validation, and audit log. However, three tools are non-functional (NOT_IMPLEMENTED), and there is no way to remove a bypass or manage constitutional rules, leaving some noticeable gaps.